MORNING PLENARY SESSION

The Chair first gave the floor to those delegates who wanted to
make general statements.

Sweden reiterated the position that this Conference is a child of
UNCED and that the previous statements have too often been a
confrontation of antagonistic legal perspectives. He reminded the
delegates that the CSD would review their work in 1996 and that
concrete results must be achieved by then. He then offered a series
of important elements that should form the core of the final
document of this Conference, including: a preamble, general
principles, regional cooperation, mandatory membership to those
organizations, timely, compulsory and binding dispute settlement,
strict enforcement and compliance measures as well as a follow-up
process that would involve UNCLOS, and a close partnership of the
CSD and the FAO. An Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC)
would be established for negotiating a convention.

General statements were also made by Sierra Leone and Indonesia. It
was highlighted that technical support must be provided to
developing countries and special consideration must be given to
their needs. Specific comments were also made on the sections of
the text dealing with the nature of the conservation and management
measures to be established through exploitation, the precautionary
approach, entrance to fisheries by new members, settlement of
disputes and the special requirements of developing countries.

The discussion then continued with a review of Section V,
Compliance and Enforcement of High Seas Fisheries Conservation and
Management Measures. The Chair briefly introduced this part of the
text by highlighting that everyone agrees that there should be
conservation and the flag States agree they have prerogatives to
take the appropriate measures, but vessels that fish on the high
seas are fishing at great distances from their nation and it is
impractical for flag States to observe what is happening on the
high seas. As part of the regional arrangements, assistance is
needed for the flag States to ensure that their vessels are
cooperating. The first delegate agreed that such assistance is
needed, but the text does not specify whether this responsibility
is shared by the coastal State or the regional mechanisms.

The Chair's text calls for a transfer of competence from the flag
State to the coastal State within the framework of the regional
organization alone, whereas in L.11/Rev.1 the competence to enforce
would be conferred on any part vis-a-vis any other party of a
universal convention. Adjustments and reconciliation between these
two texts need to be made. It should still be made clear that the
competence of the coastal State is subsidiary in nature, a residual
competence that could be exercised only provided the flag State
does not take the appropriate measures. A distant water fishing
State re-emphasized the importance of having those measures applied
through specific regional organizations. The text cannot go beyond
UNCLOS. A series of "technical details" were also highlighted by a
delegate to show inapplicability of Section V. Other countries saw
this section as the "pillars" of the negotiating text.

Some argued that direct action by the coastal State can only be
allowed in a number of particular cases, such as fishing when
fishing is banned, without permission, and when the national quota
has already been filled. Compensation schemes could then be
established if the sanctions cause damages.

A delegate said that the text should not go further than the FAO
flagging document that was agreed upon. Another delegate answered
that since not all negotiating parties present acceded to the FAO
agreement, it should not be mentioned too generally.

References to stateless vessels proved troublesome and a delegate
argued that a vessel that has a nationality but is not registered
should not be treated as stateless as provided by UNCLOS. The Chair
answered that by flying a false registry the vessel has put itself
in the position of a stateless vessel. The question of knowing what
to do with the vessel before its nationality is established is
still open.

A delegate mentioned that some of the measures to be adopted would
violate some States' constitutions, and this led to the latest
legalistic debate on the applicability, signature and ratification
of UNCLOS and its Article 117.